In OCCA case No. M 2011-0870 and case No. M 2011-0871, Sherry Kay Taylor appealed her conviction for driving under the influence and other related offenses. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse her conviction and ordered a new trial. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F 2011-1043, Ricky Carlos Colbert appealed his conviction for assault and battery on a police officer and larceny of merchandise from a retailer. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions but ordered the case to be sent back to correct the judgment and sentence to show the correct crime of assault and battery on a police officer. One judge dissented. Colbert was found guilty of assaulting a police officer after he was identified during a video of the crime. He raised several arguments for his appeal, including ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in jury instructions, introduction of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, inaccuracies in his sentence, and cumulative errors. The court carefully examined each argument. 1. For the first point, the court decided that Colbert's lawyer did not provide ineffective assistance. They felt his strategy in the case was acceptable, even if it didn't work out as planned. The lawyer's decision to dispute Colbert's identity rather than claiming he committed a lesser crime was valid, according to the court. 2. For the second point about not instructing the jury on a lesser offense, the court found that Colbert did not ask for this instruction, so they only looked for obvious errors (plain error). They concluded there was no plain error. 3. Regarding evidence, the court said the video of the crime was properly introduced, as there were no objections during the trial. 4. On the issue of prosecutorial misconduct, the court found no serious wrongdoing from the prosecutors. 5. The fifth point involved many mistakes in the judgment, which required a remand to correct records to indicate the correct conviction. 6. Lastly, the court found there were no individual errors that required relief, so cumulative error claims were not valid. Overall, the court concluded to send the case back for corrections but allowed the original convictions to stand. Colbert’s request for a hearing about his lawyer’s effectiveness was also denied.
In OCCA case No. RE-2011-138, the appellant, a man named Steven Wayne Robertson, appealed his conviction for several felonies. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the revocation of his suspended sentences but modified one of his sentences to a lower term of imprisonment. One judge dissented. Robertson had pleaded guilty to serious crimes including aggravated assault and battery, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other offenses. He had been sentenced to fifteen years in prison, but the execution of that sentence was suspended, meaning he wouldn’t serve time if he followed certain rules in a special program. Later, the state stated that Robertson had broken the rules of the program. He had failed several drug tests and had some run-ins with the law. The judge held a hearing to look into these claims. The evidence showed that Robertson was not following the program's rules and was not cooperating with mental health services. When the judge decided to revoke Robertson’s suspended sentence, he explained that he believed that enough evidence supported this decision. The court also looked at whether original sentences were too long. It was decided that, for the aggravated assault and battery charge, the length of the sentence was more than what the law allowed. Ultimately, while the court upheld the decision to revoke Robertson's sentence for breaking the program rules, they changed his original sentence for one of the charges to the correct legal maximum allowed.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-1047, Melvin Edward Dan appealed his conviction for robbery with a dangerous weapon, burglary in the first degree, and possession of a firearm after previous juvenile adjudication for a felony. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions for robbery and burglary, but reverse the conviction for possession of a firearm. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-112, Gene Freeman Price appealed his conviction for First Degree Burglary. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse and remand for a new trial. One judge dissented. Gene Freeman Price was found guilty of breaking into a building with the intention of committing a crime. He was given a sentence of twelve years in prison. However, Price argued that he did not fully understand his rights before he decided to represent himself in court instead of having a lawyer help him. The court looked closely at the case. They believed the trial court did not do a good job explaining to Price the risks of going to court alone without a lawyer. This meant that Price could not have truly given up his right to a lawyer because he didn't really understand what that meant. The judges decided that because of this mistake, Price's right to have a lawyer was violated. Since this was such a serious error and affected the whole case, the court said they could not ignore it. They ruled that the earlier decision needed to be thrown out, and Price should get a new trial where he could have a lawyer help him.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-671, Cruz appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction and sentence. One judge dissented. Cruz was found guilty because he used a knife to attack another person. The main question was whether he acted in self-defense. The jury believed that Cruz was the aggressor and that the victim was unarmed when he was attacked. Cruz said he acted in self-defense, but the court found that the jury had enough evidence to support their decision that he did not qualify for this defense. Cruz raised several issues in his appeal. Firstly, he claimed that the evidence was not strong enough to convict him. However, the court said that the evidence was enough for a reasonable person to conclude that he was guilty without self-defense. Next, Cruz said there was a problem with how the jury was chosen and that it affected the trial. The court disagreed and said that the trial judge acted correctly when explaining how long the trial would take. Cruz also mentioned that he should have been credited for the time he spent in jail before the trial. The court agreed that this was an important point but noted there was no written record of this credit. However, they decided the case should be sent back to the lower court to correct this and make sure he received proper credit. He argued about the restitution order, saying the court should have determined how much he needed to pay. The court stated there was no error because a hearing was scheduled to decide on restitution after he was released. Cruz felt that the sentence he received was too harsh and that the fee for his attorney was excessive. The court ruled that the sentence was fair considering the crime and that the attorney fee would be reviewed later to check if it needed to be lowered. Lastly, Cruz claimed all the mistakes added up to mean he did not have a fair trial. The court ruled there were no real errors, so this point did not apply. In conclusion, the court confirmed the conviction and sentence but ordered that Cruz's sentence be revised to include credit for time served.
In OCCA case No. S-2011-1115, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction regarding defendants accused of conspiracy. In a published decision, the court decided that the evidence presented during the preliminary hearing was not enough to support a conspiracy charge against the defendants. The ruling of the lower court was affirmed, and one judge dissented. In this case, the defendants were accused of agreeing to a bribe related to an election. The State claimed that one defendant offered the other a job to persuade her not to run for a Senate seat. The court looked carefully at the evidence and found that there was not enough proof to show that the defendants had a plan to commit a crime together. Thus, their appeal was rejected, and the original decision was upheld, concluding that the charge of conspiracy was not valid based on the information provided.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-469, Beauchamp appealed his conviction for Feloniously Pointing a Weapon and Felon in Possession of a Firearm. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant Beauchamp the ability to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. One member dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-877, Dennis Lynn Miller appealed his conviction for multiple offenses, including child sexual abuse, first-degree rape, forcible oral sodomy, attempted first-degree rape, kidnapping, assault with a dangerous weapon, and intimidation of a witness. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his convictions for counts one through six and eight, while reversing and remanding count seven for dismissal. One judge dissented. Miller was convicted after a jury trial in Muskogee County, where he faced serious accusations of abusing his adoptive daughter, L.M. The abuse began when L.M. was around thirteen years old, involving both physical violence and sexual acts that lasted for several years. Miller's conduct included threats of violence to control L.M. during these acts, which left her frightened and unwilling to report the abuse. L.M. eventually confided in a friend, and authorities were contacted, leading to a police investigation that confirmed multiple instances of abuse. Although Miller challenged the admissibility of certain evidence related to his past behavior and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the court determined that the substantial evidence supported the jury's decisions. The court acknowledged that some evidence may not have been properly objected to during trial, but found that the lack of objections by defense counsel did not significantly harm Miller's case, as the victim's testimony was clear and credible. The court ultimately ruled that Miller's conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon should be reversed as the evidence did not support that a dresser was used in a manner that constituted a dangerous weapon. In summary, the court upheld most of Miller's convictions while dismissing one, citing the overwhelming evidence against him and the credibility of the victim's testimony.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-166, Moises Gonzales-Tello appealed his conviction for Aggravated Trafficking in Heroin. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling to suppress evidence gathered during a traffic stop. One judge dissented. The State of Oklahoma appealed a decision made by the district court. This decision was based on a traffic stop where law enforcement officers discovered evidence of a crime, but the evidence was later deemed inadmissible. The district court ruled that the stop had taken too long and that the officer did not have a proper reason to keep the suspect detained after the initial reason for the stop was completed. During the traffic stop, the officer noticed several unusual things that made him suspicious. He called for a drug-sniffing dog to come to the scene. Even though the officer asked for permission to search the car, he did not actually let the suspect leave and did not return his driver's license or paperwork. The dog arrived about 30 minutes after the stop began, but did not find anything. After the dog didn't indicate any signs of drugs, the officer conducted his own search and found a significant amount of heroin. The court looked closely at whether the officer had enough reason to continue holding the suspect after the initial reason for the traffic stop was accomplished. While the State argued that the officer's actions were justified, the court explained that to search a car without a warrant, an officer must have either permission from the owner or a strong reason to believe the car contains evidence of a crime. In this case, the dog did not find anything and the officer did not get enough proof that would justify a search. If there had been clear consent from the suspect for the search, the situation might have been different. However, the way the officer asked for consent made it seem as if the suspect did not truly have a choice. When the court reviewed the case, they found that the district court made a reasonable decision in ruling that the initial detention was too long and that the search was not justified. The State also argued against using the Exclusionary Rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The court did not agree with the State on this argument, as they did not provide enough support for their claim. In summary, the court decided to maintain the district court's order to suppress the evidence found during the traffic stop, agreeing that the officers did not follow the correct procedures.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-568, Gary Patrick Ciancio, Jr. appealed his conviction for Child Abuse by Injury. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modified his sentence. One judge dissented. Ciancio was found guilty of hurting a child, identified as C.D. He was accused of causing burns on C.D.’s hand with a cigarette lighter and hitting C.D. with a belt, leading to severe bruises. The jury sentenced him to 25 years in prison along with a fine. Ciancio argued that his trial was not fair because the court allowed evidence that showed his bad character and past actions that were unrelated to the charges. He also claimed that his lawyer did not help him properly during his trial because the lawyer did not challenge these pieces of evidence. During the trial, C.D. testified that Ciancio was responsible for his injuries and described different ways Ciancio had punished him in the past. Ciancio denied causing the injuries, saying they were accidental. His defense included claims that C.D. got hurt while playing. The court allowed many pieces of evidence that painted Ciancio in a negative light but were not directly related to the specific charges against him. Ciancio's appeals were based on these issues, saying they made his trial unfair. The court noted that while there was a lot of damaging evidence presented against Ciancio, the key facts still proved he was guilty. However, the blend of improper evidence and the lack of objection from Ciancio's lawyer led the court to feel that the sentence might have been unfairly harsh. The court decided that because of the ineffective assistance from his lawyer, Ciancio's sentencing should be reduced from 25 years to 15 years. In conclusion, Ciancio’s conviction was upheld, but his time in prison was reduced due to problems with how his trial was handled.
In OCCA case No. F-2012-212, Bryce Andrew Davis appealed his conviction for Aggravated Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided that the District Court abused its discretion in ordering restitution, and they remanded the case for modification of the restitution order. One member of the court dissented. The case began when Bryce Andrew Davis entered a plea to the crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery against a minor at a Walmart store. The minor suffered serious injuries, including a crushed cheekbone and an orbital wall fracture, needing significant medical treatment. After Davis completed a rehabilitation program, a hearing was held to determine the amount of restitution he would have to pay to cover the victim's expenses. The court ordered Davis to pay a total of $30,528.43 in restitution, which was meant to cover the victim's medical expenses, lost wages of his parents due to caring for him, travel costs for doctor visits, and fees for copying records. However, Davis argued that the restitution amount was too high and that the court had exceeded its authority by not limiting the amount to the actual economic loss suffered by the victim. The law states that restitution is only supposed to cover actual financial detriment suffered by the victim, meaning help for their real costs like medical bills that have to be paid out of pocket. Davis pointed out that the amount awarded to the victim included expenses that were not certain, such as lost wages for the victim's father and future medical costs. After reviewing the evidence and the court's decisions, the appellate court found that the trial court did not calculate the restitution correctly. They realized that the court had used the total medical bills before insurance adjustments, which was not allowed. Instead, they should have calculated the actual amount paid by the family, which was much lower. The court modified the restitution order to reflect three times the actual economic damage for medical costs, reducing that portion of the restitution significantly. They also struck down the father's lost wages because there was not enough proof to support the amount claimed. The future medical costs award was also removed because they were too uncertain and speculative. The decision outlined the need for a clear basis for any loss that a victim claims, stating that the evidence must be strong enough to establish real losses. The court upheld other parts of the restitution order, which were justified. In summary, the court found that while the victim suffered injuries and needed help, the original calculations for restitution went beyond what was allowed by law, leading to significant modifications in the amount that Davis would have to pay. They ordered adjustments to ensure that restitution reflected actual, proven losses.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-287, Jason Harvey Thompson appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Controlled Drug and Unlawful Possession of Drug Paraphernalia. In a published decision, the court decided to grant his petition and remand the case for a hearing. One judge dissented. Thompson had pleaded guilty to two charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for the first charge and one year for the second, which would be served at the same time as the first. He later tried to withdraw his guilty plea because he felt he did not receive good help from his lawyer when he was negotiating his plea agreement. He also claimed that the court did not properly check if he understood what he was doing when he accepted the plea and that the facts didn’t support his guilty plea. When Thompson asked to withdraw his plea, the trial court denied his request without holding a hearing on it. Thompson then took his case to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, saying that the trial court should have listened to his reasons for wanting to withdraw his plea. The Appeals Court looked at all the information, including the legal rules, and found that the trial court did not follow the required procedures when Thompson wanted to withdraw his plea. According to the rules, the court is required to hold a hearing when someone asks to withdraw a plea, and since this did not happen, the Appeals Court said they needed to send the case back for a hearing. The Appeals Court also addressed an issue with the paperwork related to Thompson's charges, noting that some information in the sentencing document was wrong and needed to be corrected. In conclusion, the Appeals Court granted Thompson's petition, meaning he will get a chance to explain why he wants to withdraw his guilty plea in a new hearing, and they ordered the trial court to fix the sentencing paperwork.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-656, Jason Kenneth Dimaggio, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple crimes, including robbery and assault. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse one conviction but affirmed all others. One judge dissented. Jason Dimaggio was found guilty of several offenses that occurred during a violent crime spree in two Oklahoma counties. His crimes included robbery with a weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon, and other charges. He received lengthy sentences, with some of them being consecutive, meaning he would serve them one after another. During the appeal, Dimaggio argued that he didn't get a fair trial for several reasons. He claimed that some evidence about other crimes should not have been allowed, and that he was denied the chance to confront witnesses due to hearsay evidence. His main points included: 1. Other-crimes evidence was presented improperly. 2. Hearsay evidence was used against him. 3. The trial court allowed irrelevant photographs of him to be shown to the jurors. 4. There was misconduct by the prosecutor. 5. The jury was incorrectly instructed about his flight after crimes. 6. The combined effect of errors denied him a fair trial. 7. The court should not have ordered his sentences to be served consecutively. 8. He was unfairly punished multiple times for the same conduct. 9. The evidence did not support some of his convictions. The court reviewed all these claims and found that the evidence about earlier crimes was acceptable as part of the overall story of the events. Although there were issues with some evidence, like the photographs, the judges felt the impact on the trial was not significant enough to change the outcome because there was strong evidence against Dimaggio from witnesses. Regarding the prosecutor’s comments during the trial, the court noted that errors weren’t severe enough to matter because they were not objected to at the time. They also agreed that the jury's instruction about flight wasn't appropriate, but again, it didn't affect the strong evidence of guilt. Dimaggio’s claims of double jeopardy (being punished twice for the same crime) regarding his convictions for assault and fleeing from a police officer were not supported. The court ruled that the crimes were separate and had different elements. However, the court did agree that he should not be convicted for possession of a controlled substance because it was part of the robbery and should not have been counted as a separate crime. Thus, that conviction was reversed. In conclusion, except for the reversed conviction, the court upheld Dimaggio's multiple sentences and affirmed the trial court’s decisions in all other respects.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-381, #1 appealed his conviction for #2. In a (published) decision, the court decided #3. #4 dissented. Gary Alan Stine took an Alford plea, which means he didn't admit guilt but accepted the punishment, to several serious crimes including indecent exposure and rape. He was sentenced to many years in prison, with some parts of his sentences running at the same time. Later, Stine tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his sentence was unfair and that the participation of a guardian ad litem, who looks out for the interests of a child in court, negatively impacted his case. He believed this guardian acted too much like a prosecutor, which he thought was wrong. Stine also thought his lawyer did not help him properly during his case. The court looked carefully at everything, including the original records and what was said in court. They found that Stine's claims about both the guardian's role and his lawyer's performance were not valid. They noted that Stine had properly understood the charges against him and his sentence. Because of this, the court decided there wasn't enough reason to change Stine's plea or his sentence. They agreed that some parts of Stine's requests weren't even considered because they were not raised properly earlier. The court also found there was a mistake in the written document of his sentence that needed correcting, but that was just a small clerical issue, not a bigger problem with his case. In the end, the court denied Stine's petition to withdraw his plea and said they would correct the written sentence to match what was said in court.
In OCCA case No. S-2012-194, Campbell appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling to suppress evidence and dismiss the case, meaning Campbell's charges were dropped. No one dissented. Here’s a summary of what happened: James Monroe Campbell was accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. Before the trial began, he asked the court to dismiss the case by filing a request called a Motion to Dismiss. During a hearing before the trial, the judge decided that the evidence against Campbell should not be used, and this meant the case was dismissed. The State of Oklahoma, unhappy with this decision, decided to appeal, which means they wanted another court to review what happened. They filed their appeal based on certain laws that say they have the right to challenge the dismissal of cases when it involves important evidence being excluded. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they claimed the judge made a mistake by dismissing Campbell's case because he believed Campbell broke the law by not staying entirely in one lane while driving. Second, they argued the judge was wrong because the police officer had a good reason to stop Campbell’s car in the first place. To decide if the original judge made a mistake, the court looked at whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion to pull Campbell over. A reasonable suspicion is a legal term meaning the officer had a good reason to believe a law was possibly being broken. The officer in this case stated that he stopped Campbell because he saw Campbell's car touch the line marking the lane. However, when the judge looked closely at the evidence, including a video of the incident, she thought that Campbell was driving pretty straight and did not see enough evidence to support the claim that he was breaking any laws. The judge also mentioned that the officer’s concerns did not seem strong enough to justify the stop. Therefore, she decided to dismiss the case because there was not enough evidence to support stopping Campbell's car. When reviewing the situation, the appeals court sided with the original judge's decision and agreed that there was no abuse of discretion, meaning they believed she made the correct choice based on the information available. The court also stated that since the issue of Campbell possibly driving under the influence wasn't raised during the earlier hearing, they could not consider that during the appeal. In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to suppress evidence and dismissed the charges against Campbell, which was a win for him.
In OCCA case No. F 2011-858, Jesus Ceniceros, Jr. appealed his conviction for multiple counts related to drug trafficking and distribution. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand two of the convictions while affirming the rest. One judge dissented. Jesus Ceniceros was tried and found guilty of eight counts involving illegal drug activities in Pottawatomie County. His charges included serious crimes like aggravated trafficking in illegal drugs, trafficking in illegal drugs, and unlawful distribution of methamphetamine. For these convictions, he received long sentences, some requiring him to serve 85% before being eligible for parole, along with hefty fines. After his trial, Ceniceros raised some points in his appeal. First, he argued that the search warrant used for police to search his home did not follow the rules set by Oklahoma law. However, the court found the warrant was good enough to let the police find the place to search without needing any extra information. Next, Ceniceros suggested that the trafficking and distribution counts should combine into one charge. He claimed he was being punished twice for the same act. The court agreed that this was a mistake and that it wasn’t fair to punish him separately for those charges because they were related to the same crime. Lastly, Ceniceros claimed that the sentences he received were too harsh. The court examined this but found the punishments were acceptable under the law and did not seem overly severe. As a result of these discussions, the court decided to throw out two of his convictions for distribution of controlled dangerous substances but kept the other convictions. The court concluded that his sentences were appropriate and upheld them, stating that the trial judge acted correctly by making the sentences run one after the other instead of at the same time. This summary highlights the main points of the case and the court’s final decisions.
In OCCA case No. RE 2011-0359, Lorance Ridell Dever appealed his conviction for a violation of probation after pleading guilty to Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and remand the case, meaning they disagreed with the lower court's decision to revoke his suspended sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2012-52, #Green appealed his conviction for #Child Neglect, Child Abuse, and Possession of Marijuana. In an unpublished decision, the court decided #to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case for a new hearing on Green's motion to withdraw his plea. #No one dissented. Terry Lamar Green was in trouble for neglecting and abusing a child, and for having marijuana. After he admitted to these crimes, he was given a very long prison sentence. He was supposed to spend life in prison for the neglect and abuse charges, and he also got some additional time for the marijuana possession. Green felt upset and wanted to change his mind about pleading guilty. He asked to take back his guilty plea, which is called a motion to withdraw his plea, but his lawyer wanted to quit the case because they had some disagreement about what was going on. However, the judge said the lawyer couldn’t leave. Green believed this was unfair since he really needed a lawyer who didn't have a conflict of interest to help him with the hearing about changing his plea. The court looked into Green’s arguments carefully. It noted that the lawyer had a real problem because she was worried about possibly being a witness in the case. This could affect how she represented Green, and the judge didn't seem to understand that her interests were different from Green's at that moment. This meant that Green did not get the help he truly needed when he most needed it. Because of these issues, the court decided that Green was entitled to have a different lawyer represent him at the hearing about withdrawing his plea. They needed to make sure he had someone who could defend him without any problems. The court then decided that they needed to send the case back so that Green could have a new hearing with a lawyer who didn’t have a conflict. They also noticed that there was a missing document related to his marijuana charge, so they ordered that to be fixed too. Overall, the court recognized that Green had rights that were not properly protected, so they made the decision to help him have another chance to argue his case.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-875, #Edgar Lee Ussery appealed his conviction for #possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. In an #unpublished decision, the court decided #to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. #No one dissented. In this case, Edgar Lee Ussery entered a guilty plea to two counts of possession with intent to distribute drugs. He did this after a previous felony conviction. By working with the Drug Court program, he hoped to avoid a long prison sentence. However, if he did not complete the program, he faced up to twenty years in prison for each count. Later, the state asked to terminate Ussery's participation in the Drug Court because of new felony charges he faced. The judge agreed, and Ussery was sentenced to twenty years in prison for each count, served at the same time. Ussery wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he asked the court to let him withdraw it. He argued that the court wrongly kicked him out of Drug Court. He also claimed that he didn’t fully understand what he was pleading to at the time. The court looked at these claims. They found that Ussery knew what he was agreeing to when he made his plea. They also decided that the judge wasn't wrong to remove him from Drug Court based on his new felony charges. However, Ussery pointed out some mistakes in the process. He argued that the judgment didn’t show he got credit for the time he had already served and incorrectly said he had two previous felony convictions instead of one. The court agreed that his sentence needed some correction to reflect he would get credit for time served and recognized that only one felony conviction was used for his case. They sent the case back to fix these issues but left the other parts of Ussery’s sentence the same. In conclusion, the court denied his request to withdraw his plea, but they did agree to fix some details about how his conviction was recorded.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-366, Tony Ray Gipson appealed his conviction for First Degree Malice Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction but vacate the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and remand the case for resentencing. One judge dissented. Tony Gipson was found guilty of murdering Victor Berryhill by stabbing him multiple times during an argument at a housing complex. The argument arose after tensions escalated between Gipson's brother and Berryhill. Earlier in the night, Gipson had an altercation with his girlfriend, after which he left. When he returned, he saw his brother involved in an argument with Berryhill, which prompted him to stab Berryhill before kicking him. During the trial, Gipson tried to argue that he was acting in defense of his brother, claiming that he was provoked. He raised several issues on appeal, including a challenge to the state’s jurisdiction based on his Indian heritage and the property being classified as Indian country. The court found that the property did not meet the criteria to be considered Indian country under federal law, concluding that the state had jurisdiction to prosecute Gipson. Gipson also argued that the trial court erred in excluding certain statements made by his co-defendant, but the court determined that these statements were not reliable or relevant. The court found no abuse of discretion regarding jury instructions on self-defense or the admission of evidence regarding a prior domestic dispute involving Gipson, even though this evidence may have harmed his chances during sentencing. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction but decided that Gipson's harsh sentence was likely influenced by the improper admission of evidence relating to his character, which led to the decision to vacate the sentence and order resentencing.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-945, Hall appealed his conviction for robbery with a firearm, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault with a dangerous weapon. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny Hall's petition to withdraw his plea but reversed the conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon with instructions to dismiss it. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2011-4, Dara D. Payton appealed her conviction for Driving a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the order of deferment from the District Court. One judge dissented. Payton was found guilty after a bench trial, which is a trial without a jury. The judge decided not to give her a final judgment or sentence right away, instead deferring it for five years. Payton appealed this decision, raising three main points. First, she argued that her arrest should not have happened because it was made outside the officer's jurisdiction, and the officer did not follow the rules for making a citizen's arrest. Second, she claimed that she should not have to pay certain costs and fees because she relies only on disability benefits for her income. Third, she said the written order of deferment did not match what the judge said in court. The court found that Payton's arrest was legal. Even though the officer was outside his normal area, the court believed he was justified in his actions due to fresh pursuit, meaning he was actively following Payton because he saw her breaking the law. The judge stated that the officer followed Payton, observed her erratic driving behavior, and called for more help when Payton could not pass a sobriety test. The arrest was determined to be lawful under the circumstances. Regarding the costs and fees Payton questioned, the court said it could not decide the issue because she had not properly followed the procedures to dispute them. Payton did not request a hearing or show evidence about her financial situation to the court, making it unclear if the costs should be adjusted. For the written deferment order, the court acknowledged that it did not accurately represent what the judge had said. They decided to send the case back to the District Court to fix these errors so that the written order matched what the judge had pronounced in court, specifically that the deferment period would end on December 11, 2015, and that the supervision by the district attorney would only last for the first two years. In summary, while the court agreed with the deferment and found Payton's arrest valid, they also recognized the need to correct the written order to reflect the judge's original statements properly. The judge's conclusions about the case led to an affirmation of the deferment but a remand for the clerical corrections.
In OCCA case No. C-2011-1119, Hollis Michael Anson appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to remand the case for a proper hearing on the motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. Hollis Michael Anson was charged in Osage County District Court with making a controlled dangerous substance. He pleaded guilty, which means he admitted to the crime. After that, he was given a long sentence of twenty-five years in prison. Later, he wanted to take back his guilty plea, so he filed a Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. However, the court did not agree with his request after a hearing. In his appeal, Anson claimed there were mistakes made that affected his trial and his plea. He argued that his lawyer had a conflict of interest, which meant that his lawyer could not effectively help him. This was because the same lawyer had worked on his plea and sentencing, which made it hard for the lawyer to clearly represent Anson during the hearing to withdraw his plea. Anson believed that there wasn’t enough proof that he understood what he was pleading guilty to. He also thought that the sentence he received was too harsh. After looking closely at all the details of the case, the court agreed that there was a significant problem with Anson's representation during the motion to withdraw his plea. They found that his lawyer did not provide the help he needed because he couldn't argue properly without pointing out his own mistakes. So, the court said they would send the case back to the lower district court. There, Anson would have the chance to have a different lawyer represent him—one without any conflicts—to properly address his concerns about withdrawing his guilty plea. This was an important decision because it meant Anson would have another chance to argue his case.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-1237, James Lee Gilford, Jr. appealed his conviction for robbery with a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault while masked or disguised, and first-degree burglary, each after prior felony convictions. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse his convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and assault while masked or disguised but affirmed his convictions for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary. One judge dissented regarding the reversal of one of the convictions. The case began when Gilford was tried by a jury and convicted on several counts. The jury decided that Gilford should spend life in prison for each count, and the sentences were ordered to be served one after the other. Gilford appealed, raising several issues, including concerns about jury selection, due process, multiple punishments for the same act, and inaccuracies in his judgment and sentence. 1. **Jury Selection**: Gilford argued that the prosecutors unfairly removed minority jurors. The court found that the prosecutor had provided good reasons for these removals, and Gilford did not prove any discrimination occurred in the jury selection process. 2. **Due Process Rights**: Gilford claimed he was denied a fair trial because the state didn't share some important information about a key witness. However, the court determined that this did not affect the outcome of the trial significantly. 3. **Multiple Punishments**: The court analyzed whether Gilford's convictions were for separate crimes or for just one act. Gilford's robbery, where he stabbed the victim and took his things, was connected to assaults he committed during that event. The court decided that the assault and battery charges arose from the same action as the robbery and therefore fell under laws that prevent punishing someone twice for the same act. 4. **Judgment and Sentence Issues**: Since the court reversed the assault charges because they were multiple punishments for a single act, they found that any inaccuracies in the sentencing for those charges didn't matter anymore. The final decision was that Gilford's sentences for robbery with a weapon and first-degree burglary would stay, while the court ordered the other two charges to be dismissed due to legal protections against multiple punishments. There was a dissenting opinion by one judge who felt that the conviction for assault while masked should not have been reversed.